Ascertaining patients’ understandings of their condition: a conversation analysis of contradictory norms in cancer specialist consultations

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Sociology Review Pub Date : 2019-07-29 DOI:10.1080/14461242.2019.1633945
K. Dew, J. Barton, J. Stairmand, D. Sarfati, L. Signal
{"title":"Ascertaining patients’ understandings of their condition: a conversation analysis of contradictory norms in cancer specialist consultations","authors":"K. Dew, J. Barton, J. Stairmand, D. Sarfati, L. Signal","doi":"10.1080/14461242.2019.1633945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Patient-centred care requires patients to be active participants in decision-making in consultations. Decision-making participation requires patients to understand their condition and to be able to convey their health literacy to medical specialists they encounter. Based on conversation analysis of 18 audio-recorded consultations between cancer patients and a range of cancer care specialists, this article analyses the ways cancer specialists attempt to ascertain their patient’s understanding of their disease. Cancer specialists routinely enquire about their patient’s understanding. In doing so, they phrase enquiries in different ways, resulting in different patient responses. How questions are phrased can require patients to deal with contradictory norms in the consultation, such as the patient being competent but not assuming medical expertise, and potentially hinder patient participation. Alternatively, questions can allow patients to draw on their own experience and so facilitate greater patient involvement. Questions aimed directly at the patient’s medical understanding result in minimal or negative responses. In contrast, questions directed at what the patient has been told or has experienced, elicit longer and more in-depth responses from the patient. This analysis illuminates the co-construction of cancer specialist consultations and suggests simple ways in which patient involvement in the consultation can be facilitated.","PeriodicalId":46833,"journal":{"name":"Health Sociology Review","volume":"28 1","pages":"229 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14461242.2019.1633945","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2019.1633945","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Patient-centred care requires patients to be active participants in decision-making in consultations. Decision-making participation requires patients to understand their condition and to be able to convey their health literacy to medical specialists they encounter. Based on conversation analysis of 18 audio-recorded consultations between cancer patients and a range of cancer care specialists, this article analyses the ways cancer specialists attempt to ascertain their patient’s understanding of their disease. Cancer specialists routinely enquire about their patient’s understanding. In doing so, they phrase enquiries in different ways, resulting in different patient responses. How questions are phrased can require patients to deal with contradictory norms in the consultation, such as the patient being competent but not assuming medical expertise, and potentially hinder patient participation. Alternatively, questions can allow patients to draw on their own experience and so facilitate greater patient involvement. Questions aimed directly at the patient’s medical understanding result in minimal or negative responses. In contrast, questions directed at what the patient has been told or has experienced, elicit longer and more in-depth responses from the patient. This analysis illuminates the co-construction of cancer specialist consultations and suggests simple ways in which patient involvement in the consultation can be facilitated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定患者对其病情的理解:癌症专科会诊中矛盾规范的对话分析
以患者为中心的护理要求患者积极参与咨询决策。参与决策要求患者了解自己的病情,并能够向他们遇到的医学专家传达他们的健康素养。本文通过对18段癌症患者与一系列癌症护理专家之间的咨询录音进行分析,分析了癌症专家试图确定患者对其疾病了解的方式。癌症专家通常会询问病人的理解程度。在这样做的过程中,他们以不同的方式表达询问,导致不同的患者反应。问题的措辞可能需要患者在咨询中处理相互矛盾的规范,例如患者有能力但不具备医疗专业知识,并可能阻碍患者的参与。另外,问题可以让患者借鉴自己的经验,从而促进更多的患者参与。直接针对患者医学理解的问题导致极少或消极的反应。相反,针对病人被告知或经历的问题,会引起病人更长、更深入的回答。这一分析阐明了癌症专科会诊的共同建设,并提出了简化患者参与会诊的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: An international, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Health Sociology Review explores the contribution of sociology and sociological research methods to understanding health and illness; to health policy, promotion and practice; and to equity, social justice, social policy and social work. Health Sociology Review is published in association with The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) under the editorship of Eileen Willis. Health Sociology Review publishes original theoretical and research articles, literature reviews, special issues, symposia, commentaries and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Empathetic knowledge: conceptualising modes of knowing within families marked by illness. Orchestrating rhythms in autism care: enacting parental expertise in and through time. Sampling and recruiting LGBTQ+ populations in health research: reflections on community consultations about antibiotic resistant STIs. Drug consumption stigma and patient legitimacy: experiences of people who use drugs seeking care for chronic non-cancer pain in Nigeria. Shifting solutions: tracking transformations of drugs, health and the 'human' through human rights processes in Australia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1